The Russia Channel recently broadcast the documentary The Five Deaths of Symon Petliura (screenwriter Viktor Savchenko, director Igor Grigoriev). This production was preceded by another “historical blockbuster” entitled Ukrainian Nationalism: Unlearned Lessons. The latter was even screened on the premises of the “reorganized” Library of Ukrainian Literature in Moscow.
After watching the Petliura documentary, which is focused on the official investigations into the assassination of this outstanding leader of the Ukrainian National Republic (UNR), many viewers were left with a number unanswered questions, because the film has nothing to do with either the practice of professional journalism or historiography.
Right from the start, the filmmakers made a serious mistake by discarding the principle of objectivity, while meticulously selecting facts that discredit the UNR’s leader Symon Petliura. Official scholarship cautions against such distorted methodology, which is why this pseudohistorical “creation” can only claim the role of cheap kitsch despite the attempts to mislead viewers with commentaries provided by such noted historians as Irina Mikhutina (Russian Academy of Sciences), Aleksandr Kolpakidi (Russia), Viktor Savchenko (Ukraine), Dmytro Bondarenko (Ukraine), Mykhailo Krasniansky (Ukraine), and Marc Ferro (France).
For example, when the filmmakers use a quote from Mikhail Bulgakov, who calls the Petliurites an “unholy power,” it would not have been remiss to mention some Russian figures, at the very least Academician Fedor Korsh, who predicted a great future for Petliura even before the revolution. There are quite a few errors like this in the film.
Second, the filmmakers, as though following in the footsteps of certain contemporary historians, decided not to beat viewers over the head with the traditional accusations of “Ukrainian bourgeois nationalism,” as is traditionally done by many journalists in Russia. The main task of the first four parts of the film (six in all) is to distract the viewer’s attention with scenes of Paris streets, music, and the unhurried narration. But the “necessary” commentaries are introduced during the discussion of the versions of Petliura’s assassination.
Third, despite the help of historians, the film distorts certain historical facts and offers too many unsubstantiated generalizations. Thus, the Ukrainian Central Rada is described as “consisting of nationalist parties and circles,” while Ukrainian socialists were not involved.
Fourth, and most importantly, the filmmakers assess the activities of the Bolsheviks and Petliurites from different angles. Whereas Soviet power was simply established in Kharkiv and supported by every last worker at Kyiv’s Arsenal, the activities of the legitimate Ukrainian government are portrayed in an altogether different manner: “The self-styled parliament, the Ukrainian Central Rada, proclaimed [Ukraine’s] independence.” Petliura is described as an ambitious and materialistic individual: “He always wanted to be at the top... Neither an adventurer nor a champion of an idea, he was a man who did not want to lose power...and he fought for it in every possible way.” That comment is from historian Irina Mikukhina, the author of the monographs The Ukrainian Question in Russia (2003) and The Ukrainian Treaty of Brest (2007).
After watching this documentary, a viewer may assume that Ukraine did not have its own heroes, that it has no right to its own history, and thus no right to a future. There are many phrases in the film, like “Petliura had to wear a false moustache and hide in Poland,” or “The Directory is sitting in a railway car and its territory is underneath the car.” It is worth quoting the comment of the Ukrainian historian Mykhailo Krasniansky about the Petliurites and the Jewish pogroms: “They were like wild beasts and spared neither children nor old women...I don’t think they went to church...They were monsters; they are monsters to me. There is no politics here.”
There is no mention in the film of the fact that the Ukrainian National Republic had a Ministry of Jewish Affairs headed at different periods by Avram Revutsky and Pinkas Krasny. There is also documented proof that it was the Bolsheviks who were primarily involved in the pogroms, in order to destabilize the situation in the UNR. A number of anti-Semitic “studies” were issued by the Academy of Sciences of the USSR. The otamanshchyna, the rule of otamans, was another force that fostered chaos and disorder in the UNR. Petliura not only had to fight all those numerous “otamans” but also issue orders directed against those who were conducting pogroms against the Jewish population.
The finale of this “historical thriller” is probably meant to impress those viewers who take particular pleasure from the prospect that someone will roast in hell forever. Here the filmmakers try to present their personal views of Christian values or simply act as judges of the latest expose of the “face of godlessness.” This in no way adds to the film’s scholarly character. The screen shows Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris and a bas-relief of Satan. The voice off-screen says: “Petliura often took walks near Notre Dame Cathedral and examined the bas-reliefs...the harder Satan presses on the scales, the greater the number of sinners who find themselves in hell.” Then the screen shows Petliura’s grave in twilight.
Russia has thus once again demonstrated its view of Ukrainian history. So far, unfortunately, nothing has changed for the better, although the filmmakers claim to have tried to offer an “unbiased” life story of the outstanding Ukrainian statesman.
The Russia Channel regularly reports on events in Ukraine. These are primarily almost daily reports by Yevgeni Revenko, the head of the Ukrainian Bureau. Some of them, like the one entitled “To Erase from Memory,” echo the titles of articles carried by the Russian media — “Memory Killed by Hunger” (Tribuna, No. 45/23.11. 2007) about the Great Famine (Holodomor) in Ukraine (1932-33). Such publications are about “history being rewritten the Ukrainian way,” the political crisis in Ukraine, Russian gas, and “forcible Ukrainization.”
Here is a fragment from a recent article in Vesti nedeli (Jan. 3, 2008): “A Vesti Nedeli reporter made his way into the Ukrainian Institute of National Memory; it is here that history is being rewritten. Next is the heroification of Petliura. Right now it is Mazepa. The history of perfidy raised to new heights of Ukrainian heroism ...History is being rewritten meticulously, paragraph by paragraph, century by century. Mazepa will be followed by other heroes...”
Is this an unbiased view? No, it is a subjective, even engaged, view of history, and sometimes also a distortion of facts, which does not add to the reputation of the authors of these “fairytales” about the past.
